Prioritise fossil fuel phaseout: Scientists urge COP30 President
COP30
.
Climate physicist and signatory
Bill Hare
handed over the letter in person to COP30 President Andre Correa do Lago during the mid-year climate conference in Bonn, Germany. "We strongly urge you to use your substantial global platform to champion a fast, fair, effective and full phaseout of fossil fuels. The science is clear: the burning of fossil fuels is driving
climate change
and its disastrous impacts on the lives and livelihoods of people all around the world," the letter read. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the
Paris Agreement
, which aims to limit the rise in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. "Yet, a decade later, we remain well short of our goals. The last 10 years were also the 10 hottest years in history. The world has now exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming in a single year for the first time on record," they said.
Citing major findings from the past decade of scientific literature, the scientists said that existing fossil fuel infrastructure alone makes the 1.5 degrees Celsius target unattainable.
The signatories, including renowned physicist Paulo Artaxo and Friederike Otto, a professor at Imperial College London, said it will be impossible to avoid severe socioeconomic impacts, which will affect humanity for centuries, without a fast, just and planned transition away from fossil fuels.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
13 minutes ago
- The Wire
At UNSC, India Hits Back After Pakistan Raises Kashmir, Indus Waters Treaty
New Delhi: India on Tuesday (July 22) pushed back against Pakistan at the UN Security Council after Pakistani foreign minister Ishaq Dar used a high-level debate on peaceful dispute resolution to raise the Kashmir issue and criticise the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, describing Pakistan as 'steeped in fanaticism and terrorism' and a 'serial borrower from the IMF'. Dar, who chaired the meeting as part of Pakistan's rotating presidency of the Security Council, alleged that India has been violating UN resolutions and international law. He also accused New Delhi of unilaterally disrupting long-standing water-sharing arrangements under the Indus Waters Treaty, and reiterated Pakistan's demand for the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. Responding later in the meeting, India's permanent representative to the UN, P. Harish, dismissed Pakistan's comments. 'On the one hand, there is India which is a mature democracy, a surging economy and a pluralistic and inclusive society. At the other extreme is Pakistan, steeped in fanaticism and terrorism, and a serial borrower from the IMF,' Harish said. Without naming Pakistan initially, Harish argued that the council must take a firm position on cross-border terrorism. 'It ill-behoves a member of the council to offer homilies while indulging in practices that are unacceptable to the international community,' he said. Harish defended India's recent military action under the aegis of 'Operation Sindoor' carried out in the wake of the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam. He said that India's strikes targeted terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, and were 'focused, measured and non-escalatory'. He added that India halted operations once its objectives were met, 'at the request of Pakistan'. The Indian envoy argued that there must be 'serious cost to states who violate the spirit of good neighbourliness and international relations by fomenting cross-border terrorism'. India had put the World Bank-brokered Indus Waters Treaty 'in abeyance' a day after the Pahalgam terror attack. India has maintained that Jammu and Kashmir is an internal matter, and that bilateral issues with Pakistan must be addressed without third-party interference. However, New Delhi has grown increasingly uneasy with US President Donald Trump's repeated public statements claiming a role in brokering the ceasefire following the four-day escalation between the two countries earlier this year. India has maintained that the cessation of hostilities was the result of direct communication between military leaderships. Harish reaffirmed India's commitment to peaceful dispute resolution under the UN Charter, but insisted that 'national ownership and consent' must remain central to any peace process. He also called for urgent reforms of the UN Security Council to address growing doubts about its representativeness and effectiveness. 'The continuing UN Security Council impasse also shows the increasing challenges to its functioning,' Harish said In his broader remarks, Harish noted that the nature of conflicts has changed in recent decades, with the rise of non-state actors backed by state sponsors, and the spread of radical ideologies facilitated by digital platforms. There were new pressures on UN peacekeeping operations, he said, adding that peacebuilding has also acquired greater salience. At the start of the meeting, the 15-member body adopted the Pakistan-drafted resolution for strengthening mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. It also called on member states to make full use of diplomatic tools such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration to resolve disputes peacefully.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Landmark ICJ verdict on climate change: Inaction by nations is illegal; reparations possible
Activists protest outside top UN court ahead of climate change advisory ruling. (AP photo) United Nations's top court has said that inaction on climate change could be unlawful. The international court of justice (ICJ) said on Wednesday that countries may be breaching international law if they fail to take meaningful steps to protect the climate. It also opened the door for reparations to countries already affected by the crisis. Court president Yuji Iwasawa called the climate emergency 'an existential problem of planetary proportions' and warned that ignoring it could amount to a 'wrongful act' under international law. Activists celebrated outside the court. The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 countries. After years of pressure from vulnerable island states, the UN general assembly had asked the ICJ in 2023 to give its opinion. A panel of 15 judges answered two key questions: what are states legally required to do to protect the environment, and what happens if they don't? The court's opinion, over 500 pages long, said that every person has a right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. It's a human right. The statement alone could be used in domestic and international courts. Experts say this could shape future lawsuits, investment treaties, and even climate policies. Vanuatu's attorney general reminded judges that his people's survival was at stake. Sea levels in parts of the Pacific were rising faster than the global average. Global temperatures have already increased by 1.3°C since pre-industrial times. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo UN's top court says failing to tackle climate change 'could violate international law' Some countries, like the US and Russia, have opposed any court-mandated emission cuts. But ICJ's opinion adds to growing legal pressure. Earlier this month, the Inter-American court of human rights ruled that countries must avoid environmental harm and restore damaged ecosystems. Last year, the European court of human rights made a similar call. In 2019, the Dutch supreme court became the first to link climate change and human rights, ruling the government must protect citizens from its effects. Though the ICJ ruling is not legally binding, it marks a significant shift in climate law. The court itself admitted that law alone cannot solve the crisis, but said it plays an 'important' role in shaping global responsibility.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Urgent And Existential": UN Court's Landmark Judgement On Climate Change Threat
The Hague: The United Nations's top court announced Wednesday that if countries fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, they could be in violation of international law. The International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion in a landmark case about nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don't, calling it an "urgent and existential" threat to humanity. "Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act," court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. The court also said countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for the damage they have suffered from rising global temperatures, but what they are owed should be determined on a "case by case" basis. The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. The court said a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" is a human right. Enshrining a sustainable environment as a human right paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements. The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court. Outside the court, climate activists gathered with a banner that read: "Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW." The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? "The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line," Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis, but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. "The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough," Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. "What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots," Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the UN secretary-general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
